arowthway

I think much of the semantic proximity to evil can be derived straight from the facts? Imagine telling pre-1913 person about the holocaust.

I hate this bot-detection anime girl popping up on my monitor while I pretend to be working. Same goes for the funny pictures at the beginning of some Github readmes. Sorry for complaining about a tangential annoyance, but I haven't seen this particular sentiment expressed yet.

This scenario was a lot scarier before 2022.

Comment dates on hn frontend are sometimes altered when submissions are merged, do you handle this case properly?

How is decreasing the number of horses killed every year brutal?

Thanks for the link, I haven't seen this before and it's interesting.

I don't think the version of self awareness they demonstrated is synonymous with subjective experience. But same thing can be said about any human other then me.

Damn, just let me believe all brains are magical or I'll fall into solipsism.

For some unexplainable reason your subjective experience happens to be localized in your brain. Sounds pretty special to me.

I like the "what’s left" part of the article. It’s applicable regardless of your preferred flavor of resentment about where things are going.

It doesn't mean we can accurately simulate the brain by swapping its source of nondeterminism with any other PRNG or TRNG. It might just so happen that to simulate ingenuity you have to simulate the universe first.

I wonder if "X is not Y - its' Z" LLM shibboleth is just an artifact of "is not" being a third most common bigram starting with is, just after "is a" and "is the" [0]. It doesn't follow as simply as it does with markov chains, but maybe this is where the tendency originated, and later was trained and RLHFed into the shape that kind of makes sense instead of getting eliminated.

[0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=is+*

Turing machines are deterministic, brain might not be because of quantum mechanics happening. Of course there is no proof that this is related to creativity.

"it's not possible to ignore all of the other stuff a person has said"

I don't know, for me it's not only possible but very easy, not only regarding pedophilia but also his various political opinions I don't agree with.

Come on, can you really care about a stranger's stupid story?

Isn’t it enough that I care about not being lonely for the rest of my life, and in pursuit of that goal I decided to act like a good person and a good conversation partner?

You're probably right that him being in denial is more likely then him being super special. But I don't think this psychoanalytical reasoning is justified?

>if you've never felt it, why are you mentioning it? why are you so focused on it?

Because it's interesting / frustrating to find out that the common guidelines to living a normal life don't apply to you, and you pinpoint that fact as the reason?

I can come up with infinitely many negative statements in a discussion and it doesn't mean that opposites of them occupy my unconscious day to day.

Are people using ChatGPT for therapy more vulnerable than people using it for medical or legal advice? From my experience talking about your problems to the unaccountable bullshit machine is not very different then the "real" therapy.

This is super cool but the ending is bizarre.

> A comment on the YouTube video below complained, “Not a word about return on investment in the presentation. That means it’ll never pay off” MAGAlomaniacs are everywhere these days.

Given the supposed 50+ year lifespan of such a battery, I find it hard to believe it doesn't turn a profit at some point. And I understand that debunking low-effort accusations is asymmetric warfare. But why cite a random YouTube comment if you have no intention of addressing its claims? A more charitable interpretation is that it's meant to ragebait the readers. But to me, it seems like trying to make people feel ashamed for having doubts, by making a public example of a skeptic.